Kodak Ultra Color 100 & 400

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by robert_martin|5, Oct 27, 2004.

  1. Anyone have any experience with these films? How does the grain
    compare to other films and how do they scan?
  2. UC400 is highly regarded and is reported to scan well. UC100 is less well regarded. If you search photo.net, you will find many discussions of these two films. Here's one: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009nJX

    Here's another: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009OwE
  3. Generally I hate color neg films - but 400UC is the exception. Scans with grain as good or better than any other neg film I've tried (except the discontinued Supra 100). 100UC doesn't live up to the qualities of its faster cousin - it's not bad - but it doesn't reduce the grain much for the 2-stop drop in speed. If I need slower than 400 speed in order to use larger apertures or longer exposures (blur, etc.), I prefer 160VC (or digital (wink)).

    For some reason my scanner (Nikon LS-1000) much prefers Kodak's dyes to Fuji - the Kodak films scan dead neutral while the Fuji films scan with strong crossover casts (red shadows/cyan highlights) that are very hard to correct.
  4. Thanks for all your inputs. Allan, the UC400 shots look great, I need to try this film. I am scanning my film and have prints made from digital files if required. I have evaluated Kodak 160NC, 160VC, Fuji NPS, NPC, Reala, and Superia 200 (35mm), all others in medium format. I think the lab that processed the 160NC, 160VC, and Reala did not do a good job because the images look underexposed. I had the Fuji NPS, NPC, and Superia 200 processed by a professional photofinisher and the exposure looks correct. I have also tried Fuji Provia 100F, but I like negatives better because of the exposure latitude. I scan with a Nikon 9000ED scanner, which does an excellent job with both 35mm and medium format.
  5. Ctein tested the 100UC and 400UC films for the Sep/Oct 2004 issue
    of Photo Techniques magazine, and he liked them both. I promise to
    make no additional bad remarks about 100UC until I try it on Kodak
    paper. Ctein's review had several internal contradictions, and he
    shows a comparison image of 400NC and 400UC saying they had the same
    low (grayscale) contrast, however his images show obviously higher
    (green) shadow contrast in the 400UC.
  6. Love it love it love it. Great (fine) grain and my favourite saturation in any film - kind of mellow, but also bright and true. Scans fine as well.
  7. Based on answers the generous members of this forum provided me, I have just returned from a 2 week trip to Ireland, where I shot the 400 ISO UC. I was very concerned because of the heavy overcast and dark skies, together with incessant rain or drizzle, however, this film performed as recommended with little grain visible to me.

    Add me to the list of folks recommending this product.
  8. I can't say much for UC 100 because the mere concept of a high saturation, 100 speed print film with good skin tones is an oxymoron. I still say this film has no purpose other than impress Kodak die hards that still think VPS is a general purpose film. Kodak needs to either bring back RG-25, or stop wasting our time.

    UC 400 on the other hand is an incredible material that does everything well and nothing really bad.
  9. I've tried 100UC and it's one of the best looking films I've used. Fine grain and vibrant colors. Colors are much richer and more attractive than those taken with my Nikon 100D digital SLR. The film scans perfectly. I generally do not like using high speed film because of grain, but I'll give the 400UC a try as well because of the positive recommendations.
  10. Also I remember a Wal-mart not too far from me, selling a 4-pack of 400UC. I don't remember the price, but I'm sure it's cheaper than B&H or Adorama.
  11. Yes the price of the 400UC at Wal-Mart is $11.94 for a 3-pack with 36 exposures each.

Share This Page